keepreal

keepreal

Lives in United Kingdom Enfield, United Kingdom
Works as a Retired
Joined on Mar 24, 2007
About me:

Amateur with a passion for pictorial photography of more than fifty years.

Comments

Total: 160, showing: 121 – 140
« First‹ Previous5678Next ›Last »
On Fujifilm X-Pro1 preview (756 comments in total)
In reply to:

keepreal: At www.youtube.com/user/fujiguys/feed there are three very detailed videos from Fuji. The first gives a 19 minute leisurely but highly informative account and the other two lower down that page "Fuji Guys - Fujifilm X-Pro1 - Hands-on Preview (1/2) and (2/2) possibly cover some more. (Not yet watched.)

Did you know that Fuji are behind many Hasselblad cameras and make some of the lenses? That says a lot.

A couple of days ago I said the X-Pro1 was too expensive as a second camera to a DSLR like my Nikon D300 plus 3 zoom lenses but now I am beginning to think in time I might even decide on it as the replacement. I love my D300 with the Sigma 12-24mm lens but when the Fuji 15mm f/2.8 comes out, perhaps later in 2012, I may have to reconsider. The bulk and the weight are far too great for my liking and a far more compact alternative which equals or surpasses it in quality has to be seriously considered. But I will not rush into it as there will be a huge loss selling what I already have.

Regrettably I cannot but I surfed extensively and unexpectedly found that out. What I have said is corroborated:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/hasselblad-h1.shtml

"In September 2002 Hasselblad announced the H1... in large part manufactured by Fuji and it features Fuji made lenses."

See also
http://www.hasselbladinfo.com/forum/archive/index.php?t-2662.html

That is just to convince you I have not made this up!

Direct link | Posted on Jan 13, 2012 at 23:52 UTC
In reply to:

keepreal: A lot of interesting comments at DPR about the XPro1. This is my last word - I have just decided against it.

Judging from what I have read here, I think many older people, including me, yearn for the best of the film era enhanced by what is possible with digital technology rather than also degraded by it. Hasselblad, Rolleiflex, Leica M were beautiful - works of art and engineering in their own right as well as superb quality and at a fairly reasonable price. Even several cheaper cameras like the Kodak Retina up to the IIIc were refined and a pleasure to use. Kodak in their heyday.

Today the best cameras are very, very expensive but far surpass in the quality they can deliver. But the quality in their form and handling - it's chalk and cheese but which way round?

Those were the days mid last century and the XPro1 is only a poor imitation costing an arm and a leg. You youngsters do not know what all round quality is. Most of you have never seen it in anything!

"And you knew you purchased a quality thing because new models by the same manufacturer were not announced every month, and did not become obsolete the next month, like they are today!"

So I am glad you agree with me. Cameras today may be cheaper in terms of earnings power but only if you ignore the march of technology and keep with what you have got at least for ten years or more.

The progress is fast but not quite as fast as most people seem to think. They get lured into wasting money by very persuasive manufactures and pundits in the media whose objective is profit above anything else.

I will give you an example. I sold my son an Olympus C-5060 which I bought just to see what digital was all about. It was a high quality compact and cost me 295 GBP in 2005. Later, he wanted something smaller to go backpacking so got a Panasonic Lumix TZ6, paying a little more. He now takes the Olympus on holiday with him again. It has 5 mb instead of 10 but gives better results.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 13, 2012 at 23:35 UTC

A lot of interesting comments at DPR about the XPro1. This is my last word - I have just decided against it.

Judging from what I have read here, I think many older people, including me, yearn for the best of the film era enhanced by what is possible with digital technology rather than also degraded by it. Hasselblad, Rolleiflex, Leica M were beautiful - works of art and engineering in their own right as well as superb quality and at a fairly reasonable price. Even several cheaper cameras like the Kodak Retina up to the IIIc were refined and a pleasure to use. Kodak in their heyday.

Today the best cameras are very, very expensive but far surpass in the quality they can deliver. But the quality in their form and handling - it's chalk and cheese but which way round?

Those were the days mid last century and the XPro1 is only a poor imitation costing an arm and a leg. You youngsters do not know what all round quality is. Most of you have never seen it in anything!

Direct link | Posted on Jan 13, 2012 at 19:57 UTC as 22nd comment | 12 replies
In reply to:

Phil Flash: I seem to remember the day when a Canon QL17 film rangefinder was inexpensive, high performance, and easy to use. The world has gotten a little too complicated.

It sort of feels like Fuji is trying to take us back to simple times, but it's going to cost you.

Fuji is not taking us back to simple times, only making it a little bit more organised.

Technology in the market place is mediocre, not just in photography. You microwave and clothes washer have so many cycles they are confusing. They only need three or four.

The world has gone mad. The world in near recession and for so long prove it if you still need convincing or, more accurately, that the conditions that made it possible were allowed even encouraged.

If only I could still get colour film processed properly or the chemicals to do it myself in small sized quantities. It was only that that forced me to take the plunge though I do admit digital is better in spite of the baggage.

Digital camera should primarily replicate what film cameras can do but doing it better because they can. That does not include things like simulated shutter sounds, face recognition and as I have predicted will come, bum recognition. Additional features should be there only because they are needed. I wish.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 13, 2012 at 19:22 UTC
In reply to:

Tee1up: Having spent more than 2 decades with film SLRs, it's actually painful to watch all the compromises that pros/enthusiasts have to make with modern day digital cameras. Sorry if this makes you roll your eyes but I would head off to the most remote parts of the planet with a suitcase full of Kodachrome 25/64 and a F3HP and the only thing I ever had to worry about was a small battery and local food quality. I sadly sold my film rig and am still trying to find a satisfactory replacement that doesn't need a support team of electrical engineers to fix/explain malfunctions. I am not a pro so I have resisted going after a D3/D4 but increasingly I am getting the feeling that for an agressive photographer, this may be the best option.

With me 4 decades with film SLRs and TLRs and I do agree. The best were the real deal. Today's top end digital are huge, heavy, bulbous and appallingly complicated. Take the new Nikon D4 and its rivals not just for example, take them and keep them. They are idiotic.

If I was CEO of a top end manufacturer, I would have designed and built a DSLR with lenses at or close to the Leitz or Zeiss class. No linear distortion or any other, the body no bigger than an Olympus OM and it would not have software more than the absolute minimum. It would just shoot RAW and have ISO, exposure adjustment and bracketing, AE and or AF lock, spot metering and centre-weighted - JPEG, contrast and saturation only if possible in that size. I would also make a Leica M lookalike scaled down nearly to the OM but thinner.

For either the lenses would be small and lightweight, not like a pea (the lens elements) in a coconut shell.

Why do we not have such as this now? Are there good reasons? I really doubt it.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 13, 2012 at 18:50 UTC
In reply to:

PaulSnowcat: So they've decided to aim above NEX7 and make "the only one" camera, not an addition to a DSLR and price it accordingly, i.e. very high... Risky.

NEX7 offers great IQ, alot more lenses, and lower price. So new FUJI's sensor must be something fantastic to make someone to prefer this camera.

From what I have read the NEX7 is let down by two things, the price and the lenses. The lens choice is small and their quality a joke when you are spending that kind of money on the body.

I use RAW and a third party HDR program as the RAW developer even with single frame shots. Oloneo PhotoEngine is way better than other HDR programs I have tried in most respects.

I want lenses that are not raw and then cooked in software. Most digital lenses are, which why when I replaced my full frame Nikon F80s with the D300 I kept my quality FX lenses to use on it which, other than equipment of Leica quality and bankrupting myself, is about as good as it gets.

The Samsung NX200 is neat and tidy and, at the price, would have been a great second camera even without an optical viewfinder, which I dearly wish to have. I thought of getting one to go in the flash shoe with a prime wide angle, but the distortion of the lenses is appalling, even worse than the Sony.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 13, 2012 at 18:16 UTC
In reply to:

Nikonworks: I read Thom Hogan's characterization of Fuji's move into a mirrorless niche:
" Minor bet made (by Fuji) by putting interchangeable primes on an updated X100 frame (upcoming X-Pro1)."

This suggests that we should not 'bet' (buy) the new Fuji X system until they raise their 'bet' perhaps by getting their zoom lenes to market.

Why invest in a new system that was not that much of an investment for Fuji to enter in the first place?

Can't wait until a production review.

I think you raise an important point. The X-Pro1 and its sister models will remain in their infancy until there is a comprehensive range of lenses, they and the bodies have been on the market some time and we all know for sure whether they are top notch or only nearly.

I envy the guy who has the money that he can spend a fortune easily and early but despise him for his superficiality in not knowing what he is doing other than flashing his wealth around.

If I have to wait until the dust has settled and the new Fuji equipment is a stable and predictable proposition, then I would do the same even if I had the means to jump more quickly. I did just that, waiting until I bought the Nikon D300 so that I knew what I was doing, not merely jumping on the bandwagon.

I get the impression that for some the pleasure is in the equipment. I am interested only in pictures, the end results.

“Two things rob people of their peace of mind: work unfinished and work not yet begun" Alexander Solzhenitsyn

Direct link | Posted on Jan 13, 2012 at 17:56 UTC
In reply to:

CharlesB58: Why mention a camera like this as a replacement for a FF dslr, much less any dslr? Why do some people not seem to get it that not every mirrorless camera is supposed to be a dslr replacement? To me it's an amusing (and sometimes annoying) aspect of the dslr/mirrorless "debate" that people keep saying "mirrorless can't do what my dslr can do..."

There are those of us who appreciate the "old school", 35mm rangefinder approach to photography. I would suggest people don't look a the X-Pro1 as a replacement for a dslr any more than people looked at the Leica M4 as a 35mm slr replacement during the film era.

The same goes for zooms. I'm sure they will come, but it's obvious Fuji is not trying to beat the competition "mano a mano" but rather is using the success of the X100 as a indicator of the niche they are wanting to fill.

I favour DSLRs but only because of the optical viewfinder precision and clarity, especially with zoom lenses. Nonetheless, I yearn for something at most half the weight and bulk. Both are an issue with my Nikon D300 with the Sigma 12-24mm and two additional, bigger and heavier zoom lenses. It is fine when out on a serious photo opportunity but less so when not, just wanting to lug the equipment along with you just in case of the unexpected.

In the early 1970s I lifted the latest Leica M to my eye in a shop just to satisfy my curiosity. It was way beyond my pocket. I turned the focusing ring and knew immediately when I had hit the spot without going past and coming back again even though I had never tried it before, the viewfinder optics were that good.

So, a mirrorless digital that has that precision and is affordable would demand some very serious thought. An X-Pro1 with the 15mm f/2.8 sounds like it might be just that and if there is a smaller nearly as good model, even better.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 13, 2012 at 17:43 UTC
On Fujifilm X-Pro1 preview (756 comments in total)

For some additional observations of mine about lenses that one might hope for with the X-Pro1 and that might make interesting reading for hard to please guys like me, please have a look at my comments at the DP Review preview at http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/01/10/FujifilmXPro1_Preview.

There also is a link from there to a superb quality digital image you can download and discover (if you already don't know) what the very best lenses and digital cameras can achieve.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 12, 2012 at 19:35 UTC as 160th comment
In reply to:

keepreal: At www.youtube.com/user/fujiguys/feed there are three very detailed videos from Fuji. The first gives a 19 minute leisurely but highly informative account and the other two lower down that page "Fuji Guys - Fujifilm X-Pro1 - Hands-on Preview (1/2) and (2/2) possibly cover some more. (Not yet watched.)

Did you know that Fuji are behind many Hasselblad cameras and make some of the lenses? That says a lot.

A couple of days ago I said the X-Pro1 was too expensive as a second camera to a DSLR like my Nikon D300 plus 3 zoom lenses but now I am beginning to think in time I might even decide on it as the replacement. I love my D300 with the Sigma 12-24mm lens but when the Fuji 15mm f/2.8 comes out, perhaps later in 2012, I may have to reconsider. The bulk and the weight are far too great for my liking and a far more compact alternative which equals or surpasses it in quality has to be seriously considered. But I will not rush into it as there will be a huge loss selling what I already have.

The entry just above posted here in error and too late to edit out! Sorry.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 12, 2012 at 19:30 UTC
In reply to:

keepreal: At www.youtube.com/user/fujiguys/feed there are three very detailed videos from Fuji. The first gives a 19 minute leisurely but highly informative account and the other two lower down that page "Fuji Guys - Fujifilm X-Pro1 - Hands-on Preview (1/2) and (2/2) possibly cover some more. (Not yet watched.)

Did you know that Fuji are behind many Hasselblad cameras and make some of the lenses? That says a lot.

A couple of days ago I said the X-Pro1 was too expensive as a second camera to a DSLR like my Nikon D300 plus 3 zoom lenses but now I am beginning to think in time I might even decide on it as the replacement. I love my D300 with the Sigma 12-24mm lens but when the Fuji 15mm f/2.8 comes out, perhaps later in 2012, I may have to reconsider. The bulk and the weight are far too great for my liking and a far more compact alternative which equals or surpasses it in quality has to be seriously considered. But I will not rush into it as there will be a huge loss selling what I already have.

For some additional observations of mine about lenses especially that might be of interest to hard to please guys like me, please have a look at my comment at the DP Review preview at http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/01/10/FujifilmXPro1_Preview

Direct link | Posted on Jan 12, 2012 at 18:00 UTC

Part I - It may not seem relevant, but go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasselblad_H3D#H3D_and_H3DII. Click on the image of the blond lady and download the full resolution (7,304 × 5,478 pixels) by clicking on the correct link below the large image. Examine it magnified and you will find it beautifully sharp with not a hint of digital artefacts which even the best of my lenses on my Nikon D300 cannot equal. The latter are very sharp but lack the wonderful smoothness just a little.

If the lenses of the X-Pro1 are as good as this, albeit allowing but only slightly for the fact that they are APS-C not Hasselblad H size, then the X-Pro1 system will be the cat's whiskers, possibly taking over the mantle from Leica digital cameras. It is such a pity that Leica lend their name to second rate optics in the true compact class. My son has one of them, the DMC-TZ6 which has a so-called Leica lens but is inferior to the lens on the 5mp Olympus C-5060 of earlier vintage by about four years.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 12, 2012 at 17:26 UTC as 10th comment

Part II - From what we already know, I would expect DP Review in due course to have its full review showing the X-Pro1 to be everything a top notch digital camera can and should be. From the 19 minute Fuji Guys video “Fuji Guys - Fujifilm X-Pro1 Part 1 - First Look” at www.youtube.com/user/fujiguys/ its ergonomics seem to offer what almost every other digital camera fails to provide. I love the Q button’s functions which bypass the menu system and the ability to adjust all the key attributes without going down into either. I think a serious camera should be as simple and aesthetically pleasing to use as a top-notch film camera without stupid things like scene modes unless one wants to adjust something which film cameras just cannot address, ISO for example. The fact that almost every other digital camera fails miserably on this is a real catastrophy.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 12, 2012 at 17:26 UTC as 11th comment | 1 reply

Part III - For me, the key factor with the X-Pro1 will be the lenses and whether they follow the current least line of resistance by allowing substandard performance to be corrected by software. Such practice is fine for cameras that shoot jpegs which the user is unlikely to want to fine tune with software like Photoshop but not if you use RAW. It is all very well that usually the manufacturer provides a RAW converter which covers corrections including lens distortion but this forces you to use it. (It is a bit like putting Fuller’s earth in a car’s gearbox to make it function better.) I do not accept that limitation as I now use an HDR engine even for single shots. That is because in most respects Oloneo PhotoEngine gives superior results, usually far better than anything else does.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 12, 2012 at 17:26 UTC as 12th comment

At www.youtube.com/user/fujiguys/feed there are three very detailed videos from Fuji. The first gives a 19 minute leisurely but highly informative account and the other two lower down that page "Fuji Guys - Fujifilm X-Pro1 - Hands-on Preview (1/2) and (2/2) possibly cover some more. (Not yet watched.)

Did you know that Fuji are behind many Hasselblad cameras and make some of the lenses? That says a lot.

A couple of days ago I said the X-Pro1 was too expensive as a second camera to a DSLR like my Nikon D300 plus 3 zoom lenses but now I am beginning to think in time I might even decide on it as the replacement. I love my D300 with the Sigma 12-24mm lens but when the Fuji 15mm f/2.8 comes out, perhaps later in 2012, I may have to reconsider. The bulk and the weight are far too great for my liking and a far more compact alternative which equals or surpasses it in quality has to be seriously considered. But I will not rush into it as there will be a huge loss selling what I already have.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 12, 2012 at 05:42 UTC as 13th comment | 3 replies

At www.youtube.com/user/fujiguys/feed there are three very detailed videos from Fuji. The first gives a 19 minute leisurely but highly informative account and the other two lower down that page "Fuji Guys - Fujifilm X-Pro1 - Hands-on Preview (1/2) and (2/2) possibly cover some more. (Not yet watched.)

Did you know that Fuji are behind many Hasselblad cameras and make some of the lenses? That says a lot.

A couple of days ago I said the X-Pro1 was too expensive as a second camera to a DSLR like my Nikon D300 plus 3 zoom lenses but now I am beginning to think in time I might even decide on it as the replacement. I love my D300 with the Sigma 12-24mm lens but when the Fuji 15mm f/2.8 comes out, perhaps later in 2012, I may have to reconsider. The bulk and the weight are far too great for my liking and a far more compact alternative which equals or surpasses it in quality has to be seriously considered. But I will not rush into it as there will be a huge loss selling what I already have.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 12, 2012 at 05:41 UTC as 18th comment | 2 replies
On Fujifilm X-Pro1 preview (756 comments in total)

At www.youtube.com/user/fujiguys/feed there are three very detailed videos from Fuji. The first gives a 19 minute leisurely but highly informative account and the other two lower down that page "Fuji Guys - Fujifilm X-Pro1 - Hands-on Preview (1/2) and (2/2) possibly cover some more. (Not yet watched.)

Did you know that Fuji are behind many Hasselblad cameras and make some of the lenses? That says a lot.

A couple of days ago I said the X-Pro1 was too expensive as a second camera to a DSLR like my Nikon D300 plus 3 zoom lenses but now I am beginning to think in time I might even decide on it as the replacement. I love my D300 with the Sigma 12-24mm lens but when the Fuji 15mm f/2.8 comes out, perhaps later in 2012, I may have to reconsider. The bulk and the weight are far too great for my liking and a far more compact alternative which equals or surpasses it in quality has to be seriously considered. But I will not rush into it as there will be a huge loss selling what I already have.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 12, 2012 at 05:37 UTC as 170th comment | 3 replies

The X-Pro1 is far too expensive for a second camera but might be an excellent first choice for some.

Forget compacts. I think my choice of a second camera two years ago was inspired and still is. My first camera is the heavy Nikon D300 with three heavy zoom lenses. I was not obliged to get another Nikon but I eventually decided upon the Nikon D5000 plus the Nikkor 18-55mm VR. The lens is surprisingly good.

● Slightly heavier and bulkier than the best compacts
● Close to or = best dynamic range of entry level DSLRs/compacts
● No excessive distortion when shooting RAW
● Pretty accurate viewfinder
● No struggling to keep steady away from body as with many compacts
● Saved a bundle compared with everything else

It would be great to have a quality camera with a large sensor but slightly smaller than the X-Pro1 and ideally still with an OVF (no hybrid EVF) and a down to earth price. I am not sure it will ever happen, so another two years on and probably I still will be glad of my D5000.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 10, 2012 at 02:01 UTC as 67th comment
In reply to:

Lea5: It is the end, but there will be an new beginning.

It reminds me of another one big company, Francke & Heidecke who produced the Rolleiflex. They went out of business in 2009. Another company bought them and will produce new cameras in the future. I think with Kodak it will be the same. I guess the Company will be split, the filmline will completely die and the new owner will focus on competitive digital cameras.

Yes it is a great shame about the Rollei, the twin lens models were beautifil cameras. I could never understand why they lost their popularity even before digital took over. Holding a digital compact (even a prosumer one) away from the body and shooting like that is something I have no intention of ever contemplating and an EVF is a poor substitue for an optical finder. But the position pushed against the waist for a Rollei or a Hasselblad with the regular finder worked well in most situations.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 5, 2012 at 12:22 UTC
In reply to:

Jun2: I like film. Digital is more convenient. Kodak was a digital leader in sensor. But they have no clue how to design a good camera body. They should buy a camera company when they still had the lead in sensor. That's what happens when one can't innovate fast enough.

Their Retina range with the bellows up to the IIIc were beautiful cameras and I had one, so I think that saying they had no clue is way over the top.

Just like with cars the modern fashion seems to be to try and be as bulbous and ugly as possible, so may be Kodak had difficulty joining that dubious throng. There are still one or two exceptions to this of course but they hark back to a different era, when Kodak definitely was king.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 5, 2012 at 12:14 UTC
Total: 160, showing: 121 – 140
« First‹ Previous5678Next ›Last »